Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/18/2025, 3:24:42 PM
X
In reply to:
There is no other room 🇬🇪
@uhbif19
·
250d
@GaryMarcus @davidmanheim @XRobservatory Companies are overhyping current LLM progress, I agree. But, for example, SpaceX was doing that too, but eventually achieved their goals.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
250d
@davidmanheim @uhbif19 @XRobservatory almost two years since they posted this kind of marketing

https://openai.com/index/chatgpt…
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
250d
@GaryMarcus @uhbif19 @XRobservatory Yeah, that's absolutely something that is an issue with current LLMs. From my understanding of the architecture, the visual recognition and image generation are tacked-on effectively post-hoc, and it's impressive to me they got it to work at all.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
250d
@davidmanheim @uhbif19 @XRobservatory So you are saying that the image generation is not (despite superficial appearances) properly tethered to a world model, correct?

Let’s start there.
David Manheim
@davidmanheim
·
250d
@GaryMarcus @uhbif19 @XRobservatory It's not a test of the world model because image generation is using diffusion to generate something in the latent space of images it was trained on, not something in the language model.

It's like saying hand-eye coordination is part of understanding; it's kind-of true, but, no.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
250d
@uhbif19 @davidmanheim @XRobservatory I documented a multiple similars one for ChatGPT (not o3) in text but curious why everyone thinks image generation is not a legitimate test of a systems “world model”

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI development and the marketing practices of tech companies. It engages in a debate about the overhyping of AI capabilities, comparing it to other companies like SpaceX and Theranos.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm, but it dismisses the previous argument without providing a constructive counterpoint, which could be seen as slightly dismissive.
  2. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in a form of dialogue but does not provide constructive criticism or a well-reasoned argument, instead dismissing the comparison without elaboration. [-1]